Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth
 Itself is not Broken.
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:56:50 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <v4ivti$39gh7$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4c12r$3oop0$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4cjl7$1o4b4$1@dont-email.me> <v4d991$3qbnc$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4da12$1sioe$1@dont-email.me> <v4dbmf$3qbnc$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dcd6$1sioe$3@dont-email.me> <v4df0h$3qbnd$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dhf5$1tsdf$2@dont-email.me> <v4dja1$3qbnd$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v4djhf$1tsdf$6@dont-email.me> <v4dk7b$3qbnc$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dl3b$225kb$1@dont-email.me> <v4dn5u$3qbnd$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dop4$22o4a$2@dont-email.me> <v4dq07$3qbnc$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dqq0$2353n$1@dont-email.me> <v4el9m$3rsd6$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4f3ec$2akmh$2@dont-email.me> <v4g65a$3tn6q$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4g6vr$2ic0g$1@dont-email.me> <v4gc0b$3tn6r$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4gcjc$2msea$1@dont-email.me> <v4geab$3tn6r$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v4gg0s$2nim8$2@dont-email.me> <v4ha63$3v16r$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v4hfq9$2sdqr$5@dont-email.me> <v4ijlc$kqh$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4injg$348ha$1@dont-email.me> <v4iraj$kqh$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v4isva$392jh$2@dont-email.me> <v4itis$kqh$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v4iutm$39bc0$1@dont-email.me> <v4ivig$kqh$9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 04:56:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="020d44455d70acf7231aebb6a85d124b";
	logging-data="3457575"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Sk1h3S3y8ZEgGOuBL+dWV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wKdQw3Obb7oC/uLcx10bz5WDUYU=
In-Reply-To: <v4ivig$kqh$9@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6003

On 6/14/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/14/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/14/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/14/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/2024 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/14/24 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No it is more than that.
>>>>>>>>>> H cannot even be asked the question:
>>>>>>>>>> Does D(D) halt?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you just don't understand the proper meaning of "ask" when 
>>>>>>>>> applied to a deterministic entity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each
>>>>>>>> other then H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior
>>>>>>>> of D(D). H1(D,D) has no such pathological relationship
>>>>>>>> thus D correctly simulated by H1 is the behavior of D(D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OF course it is. The nature of the input doesn't affet the form 
>>>>>>> of the question that H is supposed to answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The textbook asks the question.
>>>>>> The data cannot possibly do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But the data doesn't need to do it, as the program specifictions 
>>>>> define it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if H was supposed to be a "Universal Problem Decider", then we 
>>>>> would need to somehow "encode" the goal of H determining that a 
>>>>> correct (and complete) simulation of its input would need to reach 
>>>>> a final state, but I see no issue with defining a way to encode that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You already said that H cannot possibly map its
>>>>>> input to the behavior of D(D).
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, it is impossible for H to itself compute that behavior and 
>>>>> give an answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't mean we can't encode the question.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to stay focused on this one single point until you
>>>>>> fully get it. Unlike the other two respondents you do have
>>>>>> the capacity to understand this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You keep expecting H to read your computer science
>>>>>> textbooks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I expect its PROGRAMMER to have done that, which clearly you 
>>>>> haven't done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Programs don't read their requirements, the perform the actions 
>>>>> they were programmed to do, and if the program is correct, it will 
>>>>> get the right answer. If it doesn't get the right answer, then the 
>>>>> programmer erred in saying it meet the requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am only going to talk to you in the one thread about
>>>> this, it is too difficult material to understand outside
>>>> of a single chain of thought.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What, you can't keep the different topic straight?
>>
>> It is probably too difficult for anyone to understand outside
>> of a single thread of thought. It has taken me twenty years
>> of rehashing the same material until I gradually got deeper
>> and deeper insights.
>>
>> *THIS IS WHAT HAS KEPT ME GOING FOR TWENTY YEARS*
>> The key aspect of all of this is that if the halting problem is
>> correct then truth itself is fundamentally broken. Since truth
>> itself cannot possibly be fundamentally broken it must be
>> fallible human understanding of truth that is actually broken.
>>
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Maybe YOUR idea of truth is broken, but not truth itself.
> 

The really weird (and very good) part of this is that your
understanding of these things beats at least half of the
experts in truthmaker theory. I have looked at a dozen papers.

Explain how an expression of language can be true when
literally no thing makes it true. This is the one that half
of the experts are totally clueless about.

Cats are animals is made true by its definition.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer